article by:stacia_doss.
![]() |
| Photo: Casey Anthony |
About a month after I had turned the ripe young age of 19, I was summoned for jury duty. I didn't know what I was in for. All I knew is that I had to call a number to see if I had to report for jury duty for about a week, with compensation of about $10-20 a day, instead of five or six times that amount for working at my day job. But what I ended up with was an experience like no other.
I was asked a series of questions with 11 other people to make sure I was unbiased. I knew nothing about the crime (which was murder and the sale of drugs), nor the people involved even though I lived in somewhat of a "town." I was almost picked to be on the jury for a big trial for which I would be sequestered for three days (meaning I would be staying in a hotel, with no outside contact with others) --except, I was taking a web class that I had to log online for that summer. Therefore, I was dismissed and replaced as a juror.
My time with jury duty was a little over a year before little Caylee Anthony died. It's sad to think about..but given the background I've mentioned with jurors and how they are picked, etc., let me get to my take on the
trial and its verdict.
I truly believe that many people think Casey Anthony, 25, murdered her daughter (yes, even the jurors) or believe that she should have at least been charged with something other than lying. However, it is the prosecution's duty to present that crime with clear and concise evidence as well as a clear motive.
As an unbiased juror, one's duty is to look at all the evidence presented and to listen to scenario laid before them.
Where the prosecution failed to convince the jurors is with this. Perhaps it was "too confident" with the overwhelming amount of evidence they held against Casey Anthony and chose the wrong route to present this information to the jury. Simply put, the argument just didn't make sense.
For example, the prosecution stated that the motive was Casey Anthony decided one day that she was tired of the life she was living and wanted to be free of her child, so she decided to kill her. That sounds like something anyone would say, in my opinion. When looking at her defense team's argument that the child drowned and the family panicked, it honestly makes more logical sense (speaking unbiasedly).
The prosecution also said that chloroform was used and stressed that the tape, when found, covering the child's mouth and nose was the method of killing the child. However, the tape had no DNA on it from anyone. Too much time had passed from the death of Caylee Anthony for there to be any, yet the prosecution insisted on pressing this evidence above all. It also said that the garbage bag in which the child was found in was similar to that of those in the family's garage. However, it was a simple, common plastic trash bag that one could find in nearly anyone's house or place of business. The general justification for the bag's origin was not convincing at all. It was too simple. For these reasons, some doubt was left in the jurors' minds and the jury found Casey Anthony not guilty of murder.
Each juror involved decline to comment, but an alternate juror agreed.
"I agree with their verdict wholeheartedly," said alternate juror Russell Huekler, who sat through the trial but did not participate in the jury's deliberations.
"The prosecution did not prove their case," he said. "The big question that was not answered: How did Caylee die?"
The verdict perhaps heard 'round the world has many in disgust and sadness for the deceased child who appears to have had no justice.
But the defense thrived where the prosecution failed. I think it truly believed that the evidence was enough to speak for itself, but its argument for the murder was not enough for the jury. Whether Casey Anthony did not or did kill Caylee, the confident prosecution simply did not succeed at proving the latter. That is the fact of this case.
